W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

Commenting on 508 Refresh (was: section 508 flaw?)

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:19:38 +0000
To: 'Jonathan Avila' <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, 'Karen Lewellen' <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Message-ID: <C18AC41C570F214AAD320947DF8D16CE2A900736@CH1PRD0802MB120.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Follows are direct links to the docket and for commenting (open until March 7th).

Also, we will be holding a public hearing collocated with the CSUN Conference (Thursday, March 1st):

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:10 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: section 508 flaw?

Karen, the 2011 ANPRM for Section 508
(http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/notice.htm) indicates that you can make comments via any of the below methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.  Follow the instructions for submitting comments.  Regulations.gov Docket ID is ATBCB-2011-0007.
E-mail:  ictrule@access-board.gov.  Include docket number 2011-07 or RIN number 3014-AA37 in the subject line of the message.
Fax:  202-272-0081.
Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:  Office of Technical and Informational Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

Best Regards,


-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:59 PM
To: Jonathan Avila
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: section 508 flaw?

Grand wisdom as usual.
Can you remind me where to comment please?  Will share that as well.
frankly it seems obvious that one  should not use software or technology that does not conform  to the standards, but to be honest?  I mean no disrespect to the brilliant souls here, but the entire process of sharing guidelines suffers dreadfully from bad or nonexistent pr.
I am still amazed that I have a letter from a financial institution stating that the federal privacy act means they need not be compliant either from a w3c standpoint or section 508.  Never mind their claim that they can legally dictate to a disabled customer what technology they must use...even with no experience using adaptive tools at all.
Truth be told no products that violate the standards should be on thelist for procurement...at all.
Will certainly motivate vendors to create products that follow the rules.
Anyone consider writing a wcag for dummies series? smiles.
With more individuals doing the web work of large companies who cannot wrap their brain around how those with  say no hands move a mouse, such documentation might save allot of energy.
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 17:20:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:38 UTC